LaVilla Shotgun Houses On Verge Of Being Demolished?

[Cheshire Cat]

All of that seems like it is to help insure that the structures are protected.  Jacksonville's OGC seems to have recently done the opposite.

Indeed. 

[m74reeves]

^  For instance, you heard during last nights meeting that a structure that has been designated and received grant funds, particularly State funds, if demolished requires those monies be paid back to the State.  In some cases that can be thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. How is it I wonder that a city department head can make such a decision for taxpayers in a unilateral way?

I believe that statement was made in reference to Genovar Hall. The City/fraternity received thousands of dollars in state historic grant moneys and I *think* maybe CDBG??? Because the money is spent, but the project is not complete, they are definitely in non-compliance. But, while at least a shell of the building still stands, at least they can say that there is a possibility of someone picking up the pieces and making a project work. Demolition of Genovar would trigger payback of those grants since the proposed project never materialized after funds expended.

That would be the same case even in non historic properties. Say the City uses its federal HUD money to help a non profit building some affordable housing. They advance money to non profit, but the project doesn't materialize. The non profit would have to return the funds (or the City if the non profit doesn't step up).

[Cheshire Cat]

Yes, they were talking about Genovar Hall last night.    But the same holds true for any building that has received Federal Historic Preservation funds, which is what has me questioning the "demolition" process in Jacksonville yet again.  It would seem to me that allowing a single department head to make the call for demolition on any structure that would put the city in the position of paying back funds, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state should not be in the hands of a single individual.  Just speaking in general terms about how the "law" is being used or " interpreted" here. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Here we go guys, from the City Website and to my point about conflicting requirements under law regarding Historic Properties.  I think demolition of a building sure as heck qualifies as "altering the appearance of a designated site".  lol   Note a review is required by law of all departments, agencies and other authorities before any action that will alter the structure can be undertaken.

1.1.3 The City of Jacksonville shall incorporate into its historic preservation ordinance, procedures for the review by the Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission, or any subsequent review body, of all plans that will physically alter the appearance of a designated site, property or historic district. This review will be required of all departments, agencies, and other authorities of the City or companies or contractors representing any department, agency or authority of the City performing work for the City

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/current-planning-division/historic-preservation-element.aspx

[Cheshire Cat]

This is also quite interesting and is part of a Jacksonville legislative document from 1988.  Last evening there was a question asked by Don Redman about who was supposed to pay for the care/restoration of the shotgun houses, which we know are owned by the City.  Well, gosh oh golly gee Don, looks like there is supposed to be a provision in the law for the City to do this.  The shotgun homes are now historically designated.  Besides this fact is the reality that the city failed to maintain property it owned and has failed city wide to do so.  There are ordinances in this city addressing those who own properties and their upkeep. Those also apply to the city.  Looks like Snyder Church, which is in need of repairs, cleaning of interior mold and the like falls under this category as well.

      MinPro Conv    
O    1988-0253    88-253 ORD RELATING TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES & PRESERVATION; AMEND CHAPT 76, ORD CODE CREATING AN HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMM; DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMM AS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM; ENUMERATING POWERS & DUTIES OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMM; AMEND TITLE VII, CONSERVATION & HISTORIC PRESERVATION BY ADDING A NEW CHAPT 307 STATING PURPOSE & DECLARING PUBLIC POLICY; DIRECTING DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS, LANDMARK SITES & DISTS; PROVIDING PROCEDURE FOR SUCH DESIGNATIONS; AUTH & PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO HISTORIC LANDMARKS, LANDMARK SITES & DISTS; ESTAB EMERG ACTIONS FOR NON-DESIGNATED PROPTY; PROVIDING FOR MAINT & REPAIR OF HISTORIC LANDMARKS, LANDMARK SITES & DISTS; PROVIDING PENALTIES; PROVIDING CIVIL REMEDIES; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PROVIDING FOR CONSTRN WITH OTHER LAWS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. (REQ OF HISTORIC LANDMARK COMM & C/M DARLING, FOWLER & DAVIS) (NOTE: ADVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAR,.

[sheclown]

Here we go guys, from the City Website and to my point about conflicting requirements under law regarding Historic Properties.  I think demolition of a building sure as heck qualifies as "altering the appearance of a designated site".  lol   Note a review is required by law of all departments, agencies and other authorities before any action that will alter the structure can be undertaken.

1.1.3 The City of Jacksonville shall incorporate into its historic preservation ordinance, procedures for the review by the Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission, or any subsequent review body, of all plans that will physically alter the appearance of a designated site, property or historic district. This review will be required of all departments, agencies, and other authorities of the City or companies or contractors representing any department, agency or authority of the City performing work for the City

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/current-planning-division/historic-preservation-element.aspx

So, a COA isn't a "courtesy" for other departments, it is a requirement.  Even with emergencies.

The HPC looks like it is required to review.

[Cheshire Cat]

Here we go guys, from the City Website and to my point about conflicting requirements under law regarding Historic Properties.  I think demolition of a building sure as heck qualifies as "altering the appearance of a designated site".  lol   Note a review is required by law of all departments, agencies and other authorities before any action that will alter the structure can be undertaken.

1.1.3 The City of Jacksonville shall incorporate into its historic preservation ordinance, procedures for the review by the Jacksonville Historic Landmarks Commission, or any subsequent review body, of all plans that will physically alter the appearance of a designated site, property or historic district. This review will be required of all departments, agencies, and other authorities of the City or companies or contractors representing any department, agency or authority of the City performing work for the City

http://www.coj.net/departments/planning-and-development/current-planning-division/historic-preservation-element.aspx

So, a COA isn't a "courtesy" for other departments, it is a requirement.  Even with emergencies.

The HPC looks like it is required to review.

It sure looks like this is a requirement as stated on the City's own site while giving a breakdown of Historic Preservation criterion (which is currently online, link posted in my previous comments).  This is what I have found in dealing with this city over the years.  Very often there is criterion and legislation that conflicts. It is also not unheard of for legal opinions from the GC to match current departmental actions as opposed to question them.  Not in all cases of course, but often enough.  The problem is that citizens almost never investigate things (documents and laws) on their own and simply accept what the city tells them on an issue.  I have learned that intentionally or non-intentionally, information given is not always accurate or according to all the legislation on the books as well as departmental requirements.  Of course the public assumes what they are being told is both accurate and non-debatable.  That is simply not the case. 

[Debbie Thompson]

For the record, before we get too giddy, we don't yet have designation.  LUZ approved it.  It still has to go before the full City Council where, we know, anything can happen.

Don Redman keeps talking about the valuable land two block from the courthouse.  No one has lined up for it yet, but in true Jacksonville style, he want these houses gone anyway ahead of time, just in case.  How many times now have we torn down buildings for a development that was promised and never happened?  Our city is littered with vacant lots with ghosts standing on them.  And not just the urban core.  There's a huge vacant lot at I-95 and University where two motels once stood and where, today, a Home Depot is supposed to be standing.  Instead, it's an empty, ugly, weed strewn, fenced, concrete lot.

So keep the emails and support coming.  Come to the Council meeting and speak for preservation.  It ain't over till it's over, and the fat lady sings.